JPG - PNG conversion problem

[Dietrich Epp]

On Feb 2, 2004, at 9:32 AM, Raaijmakers, Vincent ((GE Infrastructure)) 
wrote:

> Yes I did.
>
> image.depth = 8
>
> But it didn't help, the 64k is the image file size having 256 colors.

160 * 120 = 19200

So something is wrong.  First of all, PNG compressions is usually 
around 2:1 to 4:1.  JPG compression often still looks acceptable at 
10:1 or higher.  Second of all, depth is bits per sample.  8-bit RGB 
takes up 24 bits per pixel.  The depth is probably 8 already.  What you 
want to do is convert the image to indexed color.

My guess is the reason your file takes up 64k on your hard drive is 
that your file system is rounding up to the nearest block.  Try to find 
out the exact number of bytes, it's undoubtedly smaller.  Create a text 
file on your drive that only contains one letter, then tell us what the 
size is.  Due to the type of compression that PNG uses, the worst case 
scenario is a little more than 57k.

Now comes the part where I question your motives... what is wrong with 
JPEG?  Converting JPEG to PNG indexed is practically the worst case 
scenario for image conversion.  You get big file sizes, dithering, and 
JPEG artifacts all in one image!  I can think of worse conversions, but 
they involve things like transmitting the raw image data over an RS232 
connection without error connection up an elevator shaft.